APPENDIX B1

RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS
B-3 

RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS 

This Appendix Section B1 provides detailed responses to Federal agency letters, presented in the 

below order: 

 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region III .................................................... B-4 

 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) .............................................................................. B-19 

 Department of the Interior (DOI) ........................................................................................ B-30

 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ............................................................................ B-59 

Appendix B1 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-4 

US EPA REGION III 1. The Department of Rail and Public T

continued to coordinate with fedaffected locali6ties, the general publiduring the preparation of this FinaStatement (EIS) and its associated Rand will continue coordination effortpermitting (after funding becomes aimprovements are scheduled) in applicable federal and state laws and Federal Railroad Administration (FRthat any new alternatives would be Project; however, if any new alternatand FRA would determine whetheEnvironmental Policy Act (NEwarranted in accordance with CoQuality regulations (40 CFR 1502.9), 

2. The ratings of the Preferred Alternati

Arlington section that were provideProtection Agency (EPA) are notedconsidered as part of the recommPreferred Alternative upon which thhas endeavored to address EPA’s information in response to each of EPrefer to DRPT numbered statementresponse 
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US EPA REGION III (continued) (No comments on this page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-6 

US EPA REGION III (continued) 3. Clarifying language on the Project N

needs of the DC2RVA corridor as wthe 2002 Tier I EIS, can be found in Fihas been added since the Draft EIS. 

4. The DC2RVA Project’s stated Purpo

capacity between Washington, D.Cdeliver higher speed passenger supporting the planned expansion service and accommodating the forerail service by developing an efficienrail corridor. As stated in Section 1.the corridor where the Project is operated by freight railroad CSXTservice proposed for the Project arincreased freight volumes because frto economic demands created by cindependent market forces, separaProject alternatives were developed consider the volume of total freight volume of total freight traffic by the gand type of freight train. Neither Fthat the additional 9 new daily intertrains (18 total trains per day) proporesult in any change in either the typshipped on the corridor, including h

 Please see response to DRPT-numb

for more specific information about materials in the Draft EIS. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US EPA REGION III (continued) 5. As summarized in Chapter 2 of th

with local governments occurred ducontinued throughout the developmewas then distributed to local govecomment. Draft EIS Section 4.5 addrein the corridor, with a focus on knowhazardous materials, and Final EIS information for the Preferred Altethese sections, hazardous materials construction, including any additiodiscovered during construction or structures, will be removed and diwith all applicable federal, state, anecessary remediation will be conduapplicable federal, state, and local will be coordinated with EPA, the Environmental Quality (VDEQ), anlocal agencies as necessary. Final Edetail on public surface waterinformation since the Draft EIS. addresses public health and safety amaterials transport on the rail provided since the Draft EIS, includiof hazardous materials on railroads. 

6. DRPT will continue efforts to avoid 

community and environmental resdesign and permitting, after fundinincremental improvements are sched

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-8 

US EPA REGION III (continued) 7. In response to EPA’s recommendatio

impacts in relation to the Limits of opening section of Chapter 5 of additional definitions of permanenAppendix L of the Final EIS providthe Preferred Alternative, includintemporary and permanent limits of din Final EIS Chapter 5, temporarencompassed by short-term construby short-term impacts from construcpermanent Project-related land distLOD represent the final long-term bwhere the land would be disturbcaused by the operation of the proppassenger rail services, such as noquality or air quality, DRPT used aextend beyond the physical LODpermanent limits of disturbance are for each environmental attribute evaaddition, Section 5.19 Construction short-term or temporary impacts frofor the Preferred Alternative. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US EPA REGION III (continued) 8. As indicated on page 3-5 of the Dra

wetlands along the corridor followed Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Vand Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Versioof the United States Army Corps delineation manual, as applicable Potentially impacted stream channels Unified Stream Methodology form. Fiethe Virginia Department of Environmeconducted at several intervals during that surveys were conducted accordinAs indicated in Draft EIS Section 3.1.4using an abbreviated version of the Coet al., 1979). The majority of the Preferrconstruction of one additional new trfrom the existing tracks, and the perma(LOD) are generally within 40 feet of way (see the beginning of Chapter 5 odescriptions, and Appendix L of the FinPreferred Alternative). Therefore, wetland identification provides adeqareas that would be impacted by the Paquatic resources beyond 100 feet are aindirect effects in Draft EIS Section 4.10with the USACE on wetland and relateinception, including several joint field and assessment methods were expectations. The USACE also commeto their letter and responses) and as inuse the methodology in use by USACfor determining compensation require

9. DRPT quantified potential impacts t

on limits of disturbance identified where Project infrastructure would pconditions) and temporary (i.econstruction that would be regraded response to DRPT-numbered statemhave been clarified in Final EIS Chap

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-10 

US EPA REGION III (continued) 10. Comment noted. DRPT will determ

at the time of permitting in coordinagencies during final design, after fuand incremental improvements arChapter 7 provides an overview of fincluding final design and permitti

actions, approvals, and permits that 

11. The abbreviated Cowardin classifi

Table 4.1-2 of the Draft EIS and Tabinclude cypress-tupelo swamps acommunities. However, there are npresent within the Project area (i.e., The presence of tidally-influenced Draft EIS Section 4.1.2, and updated (0.85 acres of permanent impact in and 4A, and 0.50 acres of temporAlternative 1B, 2A, and 4A). As indi5.1.6.1, efforts to avoid and minimize continue into final design, after fuand incremental improvements are the functions, values and conditioavailability of mitigation sites will be 
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US EPA REGION III (continued) (Response to comment 11 on previous page) 12. Locations of public groundwater s

within the Project corridor were map

maintained by the Virginia DeparVirginia Department of Mines, Minand Virginia Department of Transporprotection areas were identified baseVirginia Department of EnvironmenWellhead Protection Plan (2005), whicEnvironmental Protection Agency (Especific regulatory requirements relatareas. Rather, localities are encourfederal technical assistance and grantprotect community water system slargely through land use managemenand comprehensive planning). NotwiSection 5.1.6.4 of the Final EIS, effordrinking water could involve modialignment shifts to avoid or minimizmanagement practices (BMPs); the utemporary and permanent stormwatto reduce transportation of chemicals should include limited use or avoidavegetation maintenance chemicals neand well locations. Measures that wcomply with surface water pollution perosion and sediment control management program, and stormwplan requirements also would protcontamination. These measures, as wspill response measures (see respostatement #5 above) would minimizCoordination with local government the public during final design, as wadditional evaluations that may be c

manner similar to the coordination duMonitoring is not anticipated at implemented if determined necessary 

federal water quality permits that wouthe Project. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-12 

US EPA REGION III (continued) 13. DRPT solicited agency concerns abou

scoping process, participating agencconsultation with regulatory agencieand Wildlife Service (USFWS), NService (NMFS), Virginia Departme

Fisheries (VDGIF), Virginia DepartmRecreation (VDCR), and Virgi

Commission (VMRC). In additionfederally listed threatened and endanimpacted by the Project was obtainInformation, Planning, and Conservincluded in Draft EIS Section 4.10.3; uwas obtained in February 2018 and Section 5.10.3 for the Preferred AlternEIS Section 5.10.3.2, DRPT will conUSFWS, EPA, VDCR, VDGIF, and regarding habitat and wildlife, includlisted species, to ensure impacts arpracticable throughout final design available and incremental improvemthat appropriate mitigation is deveunavoidable. 

14. Subsequent to submitting these writt

EIS, the EPA and DRPT discussed the to wildlife crossing in a call on June EPA suggested inclusion of naturaexample to improve wildlife passagthose types of accommodations woufinal design (refer to Section 5.10.1.1 odetails). Accordingly, DRPT will condesign features to improve wildlifdesign. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US EPA REGION III (continued) 15. As presented in Section 5.1.6.2 of the 

be designed in accordance with Floodplain Management and 23 CFR and Hydraulic Design of EncroachAccordingly, the Project is not expectelevations, the probability of floodproperty loss and hazard to life. A and study will be conducted during f

becomes available and incremenscheduled) to ensure that no substanwould occur as a result of the Projweather events, which could includprolonged or intense rainfall, and flsuch events, would be addressed durProject, after funding is secured and inare scheduled. Potential for expansion response to extreme heat and cold alsthe design and specifications for Additional design, operational, anwould also be considered, as approprdevelopment as federal and state resiliency design continues to evolve. 

16. While much of the rail bed is permea

and side slopes), measures to avoid water quality and adjacent habitavegetative buffers and swales (see Finminimizing clearing and grubbing in EIS Section 4.10.1.4). Placement of facilities will avoid wetlands and othextent feasible, to be determined dfunding becomes available and incre

scheduled. DRPT will consider oppadditional green infrastructure or loappropriate, during final design available and incremental improveme

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-14 

US EPA REGION III (continued) 17. EPA is correct that the Empire Line in 

speeds above 90 mph. As described ithe sound exposure levels measurewere used to calculate noise for passen90 mph, and the sound exposure levpassenger trains traveling at 90 mph w“High Speed Ground TransportatiImpact Assessment” (September 20which includes procedures to adjusactual speeds being modeled. Nauthorized speed for passenger trainmile Project corridor from 90 miles pachieved in different segments of the total approximately 41 miles) t(approximately 2 miles of the corrido

18. In response to EPA’s recommendation 

a secondary and cumulative impact, Final EIS for qualitative discussion of as a cumulative effect, which has been Noise measurements taken as the bas(see Draft EIS Section 4.7 for methocumulative impacts of past and preseof potential noise effects of the Projectwith future development are anticipaexisting urban and suburban environmcommunity comprehensive plans. Thfor the DC2RVA Project measured ecurrently using the corridor, which abackground noise sources near each mnoise analysis then calculated noise proposed 9 new daily intercity passetotal trains per day) along the corridinstances where the DC2RVA Project 

on which freight trains may operate, athe noise analysis performed for the note that all existing or planned increthat corridor would occur irrespective the DC2RVA Project. Section 5.7 of noise analysis associated with the Pincludes additional clarification since 
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US EPA REGION III (continued) (Response to comment 18 on previous page) 19. Comment noted. The Project has 

community outreach and participaregarding Environmental Justice (EJprovided in Chapter 6 Public InCoordination of the Draft EIS. DRPT demographic data that was approprbe required during future design phdetermined at that time. 

20. Title VI, EJ, and Limited English-Pro

communities were identified early 

targeted with public outreach mlocations within their communities, 

the Draft EIS. Census data were uplocations of Title VI, EJ, or LEP poputwice during the Project, and any fielwere also included in the public outr

21. Comment noted. The potential direc

the Preferred Alternative are evaluFinal EIS, and have been updated potential benefits of the Project wedevelopment of the Purpose and Nefurther quantitively evaluated as paDevelopment Plan (which is being Project, refer to Section 7.3 of the Finas part of a public benefits analysi

Transportation guidance. The greatpassenger service, the extension of seMain Street Station, and the allopassenger trains from Norfolk and iwhich would be provided by the Praccessible within and beyond the Danticipates that the 9 new daily intertrains (18 total trains per day) to be adbe operated by Amtrak, like other inthe corridor. The fares for passengtrains would be set by Amtrak in cooother stakeholders at the time the service. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-16 

US EPA REGION III (continued) 22. As requested by EPA, Executive Or

Section 5.18 of the Final EIS, which Draft EIS. 

23. The analysis of indirect effects follow

process based on National CooperProgram Report 466, Desk RefereIndirect Effects of Proposed Trancumulative effects analysis in the Devaluation process based on FHWA submitting these written comments and DRPT discussed the Project’s effects in a call on June 6, 2018. Eanalysis methodology, specifically in / future actions for all resources, aquatic systems, habitat fragmendevelopment, and the Shockoe BottStation. DRPT updated the disccumulative effects (Section 5.20 in thwith FRA during this call, as summa

 In the context of impact-causin

construction and operation of the raitwo kinds of indirect impacts, those induced development and those assdownstream (in time and place) iEPA’s comments regarding watersheDRPT employed a qualitative assessmthe teleconference, DRPT added impacts of other past and present actrespect to noise, based on scoping corridor and the expected impacts, that indirect noise impacts were potentially significant issue, and thdetailed quantitative analysis in the ihowever, as discussed on the telequalitative discussion was added to resources discussion in the Richmonis more thoroughly discussed throuto Section 3.1 of the Final EIS for add

(Response to comment 24 on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US EPA REGION III (continued) 24. through 29. The requested text / 

clarifications are included in the errawhich is Appendix A of the Final EIS
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-18 

US EPA REGION III (continued) 30. The 2014 air quality index data prese

Draft EIS reflects the most recent datthe USEPA website at the time of preWhile the 2014 data has since been relatively minor and would not affedrawn in the Draft EIS. 

31. The requested text clarifications h

Section 5.6.1 of the Final EIS. 

32. The requested text clarifications h

Section 5.6.1 of the Final EIS. 
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1. The Department of Rail and Publi

anticipates submitting a Joint Permreview by the United States Arm(USACE), Virginia Department of (VDEQ), and Virginia Marine Resourduring final design, after funding incremental improvements are schinterest review process is noted. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-20 

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (co2. DRPT will apply for and obtain any r

once funding becomes availaimprovements are scheduled. DRPT to be permitted by the USACE, the Pthe Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines [40Cmust determine that the alteEnvironmentally Damaging PracticaDRPT appreciates the cooperation aUSACE during the development of that the Preferred Alternative identmeet USACE’s requirement as the LE

3. Clarifying language on the Project N

needs of the DC2RVA corridor as wthe 2002 Tier I EIS, can be found in Fi

has been added since the Draft EIS. 
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (co4. The estimated Limits of Disturban

Alternative evaluated in the DrAlternative evaluated in the Final station locations and appurtenant fstream and wetland impacts may facilities to be designed during futurmanagement facilities and noise malso be lessened through continued eminimize impacts (see Final EIS Sectdesign, after funding becomes avimprovements are scheduled. 

5. Minimization measures listed in Fina

been incorporated into the conceptuaAlternative. As noted, DRPT will contiand minimize impacts as part of fibecomes available and incremental imStations and stormwater management outside of streams and wetlands to the 

6. DRPT will consult the Regulatory 

Information Tracking System (RIBavailability of mitigation bank credits funding becomes available and increscheduled. If there are insufficient b

DRPT is prepared to develop a permitproposal in coordination with USACprocess. Proposed compensatory mit

in coordination with the USACE duri

7. DRPT has confirmed that there are n

within the LOD for the Preferred wetland determination data forms fincluded as Attachment G to Appen

DRPT will continue to strive to avoisystems through final design (after fuand incremental improvements are ssuch wetlands is not feasible, DRimpacts at ratios identified in coordi

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-22 

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (co8. Comment noted. While the Unifi

(USM) is the current approved metassessing existing stream conditionUSACE prior to conducting the fsurvey and assessment methods weexpectations, DRPT will use the USACE at the time of permit appcompensation requirements. 
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (co9. The wetland functions and values 

part of the DC2RVA Project was a quof functions and values of each professional judgment of the wetland surveys; this assessment approach pramongst the 335 wetlands identifiecorridor. DRPT recognizes that thdeterminations and the USM results USACE, and DRPT will coordinate wfunctions and values assessments process. 

10. Comment noted. DRPT concurs th

Administration (FRA) is the lead fecollective federal responsibilities uNational Historic Preservation Acconsultation with USFWS, and conMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS) fo

accordance with Section 305(b)(2) oFishery Conservation and Managem
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-24 

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (co11. Where feasible, FRA and DRPT rec

Alternative that is located within the eand utilized existing bridges or recstructures, thereby minimizing potenAdditionally, prior to conducting thProject alternatives shown in the Dconducted a thorough evaluation of optional alternatives along the DC2Alternative Areas 2 and 4, as docuAlternatives Technical Report of the Appendix A documents the alternscreening process for the Project, and presents the results of the screening prwetlands was an important criterion in process establishes a range of alternatthen systematically evaluates and screedown to only the more reasonable analysis in the Draft EIS. Reasonable meet the Project’s Purpose and Neeeffective compared to other similanticipated to have acceptable levels onatural environments. DRPT believes alternatives as defined by USACE’s pebe either the same or a subset of the identified in the Draft EIS. As describDraft EIS, DRPT identified approximalignments for each rail section. Durdocumented in Chapters 5 and 6 of ApDRPT evaluated each alignment optioon wetlands. Section alignments witwere eliminated from further conssection alignments were combined to carried forward for further evaluation 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (co12. Consistent with the Commonwealth T

resolution from December 6, 2017, AlteEast of Existing was selected as the Prconsistent with the USACE’s recomBuild Alternatives that were evaluaterecommended in the Final EIS. 

13. Refer to DRPT-numbered statem

Alternative 5A was selected as ththrough this area, which maintains Town of Ashland, and is consistent preference. 

14. Consistent with the CTB resolution 

Alternative 6F: Full Service (StapleMain Street Station) was selected as Other Area 6 Build Alternatives thDraft EIS are not recommended in th

15. Refer to DRPT-numbered statement 16. Please refer to the opening section of 

which provides additional definit

temporary Limits of Disturbance (LThe LOD for each Build Alternative and for the Preferred Alternative evincludes proposed station locations aas well as access roads. The estimated areas of anticipated construction accEIS Section 5.7.1.3, noise barriers arrail projects because it is not cost eindividual locations across large arincluded in the final design, the consbarriers would be included in the ref

17. See response to DRPT-numbered sta18. Comment noted. DRPT will conti

USACE throughout future final desi
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-26 

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (co(Response to comment 18 on previous page) 19. Draft EIS Section 4.1.6.1 provides a c

strategy based on USACE’s and EPA’s 

Losses of Aquatic Resources, Final corresponding section of the Final EIS expanded discussion of conceptual DRPT recognizes the importance of amount and type of available bank streams. DRPT will conduct a more d

availability of mitigation bank creddetailed compensatory mitigation plthere are insufficient bank or in-lieu fee to develop a permittee-responsible coordination with the USACE early in 

20. The referenced statement in Draft EIS 

the indirect downstream effects was idiscussion in the bullet points which for concluding that the potential imlimited. The indirect and cumulative eupdated in Section 5.20 of the Final EIS

21. Estimates of construction timeframes w

of final design, after funding becomes improvements are scheduled. DRPT qto natural resources based on limits opermanent (i.e., areas where Projphysically replace existing conditions) required for construction that would bthese definitions have been clarified in Final EIS Chapter 5. As clarified in Finais potential for the Preferred Alteintroduce additional invasive species construction; however, with implemidentified in Final EIS Section 5.10.1.4, of disturbed areas with seeds that are the Virginia Seed Law and implementPractices (BMPs), DRPT does not antpermanent invasive species impacts. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (co22. The effects of fragmentation of in

addressed in Draft EIS Section 4.1Communities and Draft EIS Section 4.1importance of interior forest habitat species (FIDS) is introduced in Draft Ethere, fragmentation of interior foreconcern for neotropical migratory discussion of the effects of fragmentatiincluding predation, displacement, anwithin the discussion of migratory b4.10.2.2. Avoidance and minimizatioDraft EIS Section 4.10.1.4 and Draft EIS minor alignment shifts, minimizing creplacement, native revegetation, and reduce impacts of fragmentation of inEIS Sections 5.10.2.3 (avoidance, minevaluation for wildlife) and 5.20 (indirhave been updated since the Draft clarifications on this topic. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-28 

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (co23. Data sources vary by resource. 

floodplains within a 500-foot-wide sDC2RVA corridor were initially iden

photographs and topographic mCatalog maps from the Virginia Depand Recreation (VDCR) Division wetlands digitized by the City Hydrography Dataset (NHD) maps Geological Survey (USGS), Nation(NWI) maps from the United States (USFWS), Virginia Department of “Comprehensive Environmental Dat(CEDAR) Geographic Information Smitigation sites, and Flood Insurancthe Federal Emergency Managemenconducted field surveys in Septembe2016 to verify the existence ointermittent, and perennial streams feet of the existing rail on the simprovements are proposed. The augmented and updated the NHD a

 In the Draft EIS, a full detailed listing 

included in the Alternatives TechAppendix A of the Draft EIS); see Received for Washington, D.C. to RSpeed Rail Project. 
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (co(Response to comment 23 on previous page) 24. The referenced text appears on Page 3

Draft EIS, which is the NaturMemorandum; DRPT concurs, by wthe referenced sentence regarding values of tidally-affected wetlands sh5.1.2 of the Final EIS documents the Alternative on wetlands and does nolow overall functional values of any wto the railway. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-30 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

1. Chapter 6 of the Final EIS inclu

coordination on Section 4(f) uses thapublication of the Draft EIS. As nooffices of the National Park Serviparties under Section 106 of the NatioActon for this undertaking (includinDepartment referenced in the commProtection Program, Captain John SmHeritage Trail (NHT), Potomac HeritWashington-Rochambeau National Washington Memorial Parkway (GWSpotsylvania National Military PNational Battlefield Park, and the NOffice. FRA and DRPT will continue agencies, and others as needed, potential use of Section 4(f) propertiregarding the content of an agreemeneffects/impacts, through final designfunding becomes available. 

2. Comment noted; FRA and DRPT app

continued cooperation on this Projec
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

(Response to comment 2 on previous page) 3. Alternative 1B: Add Two Tracks on 

the Preferred Alternative (refer to Fdetails). Park impacts from the Ppresented in Section 5.14 of the Final Limits of Disturbance that have publication of the Draft EIS. No perneed to be acquired from the GWMTrail; there will only be temporary these facilities. No permanent or temneed to be acquired from the RSanctuary. The land adjacent to the area is owned by Arlington County. 

The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation is CFRA and DRPT will continue to cregarding the temporary occupanresources during final design, after fuand incremental improvements artemporary occupancies are excepted Section 4(f) approvals if they meet tCFR 774.13(d) and would not be conIt important to note that the SectioProject follows FHWA and FTA procdirectly subject to these rules, FRA hprocedures are appropriate for use o

4. As presented in Section 5.14 of the 

right-of-way will need to be acquired and Spotsylvania National Military Hill area and the Stonewall JacAdditionally, the Final Section 4(f) Ethe Final EIS. FRA and DRPT will cothe NPS regarding the temporary oc4(f) resources during final designavailable and incremental improvemthat temporary occupancies arrequirement for Section 4(f) apprconditions listed in 23 CFR 774.1considered a de minimis use. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-32 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

5. Of the eight offices of the NPS that 

this undertaking, three are stewarresources: American Battlefield Prand Richmond National Battlefield commenced coordination with these and have continued communicating telephone calls, and in-person meehas undertaken extensive coordDepartment of Historic Resources 2014, including acquiring data oresources (including battlefielidentification- and evaluation-level sSection 106 of the National Historic viewed mapping data of all historic prelated resources, and sought to aavoidance was not possible, DRPT agencies to minimize the Project’s fpotential impacts. This data was sharand consulting parties, including diaProject effects. FRA and DRPT have consult with the NPS in producMemorandum of Agreement (MOA) mitigate any adverse effects caused Section 106 Draft MOA is Appendix 

6. Chapter 6 of the Final EIS includes c

impacts relative to the smaller park upark for the referenced parks. SpecFredericksburg and Spotsylvania (Stonewall Jackson Shrine and the arDraft EIS already addressed Mount separately. There are no impacts to Project. Additional information on provided in Section 5.13.3 of the Fina

7. The Project is complying with Sec

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to dProject on each unit; refer to Section 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

8. DRPT will continue to coordinate w

Interior regarding temporary impaafter funding becomes availaimprovements are scheduled. At thaimpacted will be determined and DDepartment to develop mutually agr

9. The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation is C

and Appendix E presents the Sectcoordination efforts since the beginand DRPT have described the coordisupport of FRA’s Section 4(f) determSection 106 consulting party, all stepcompliance process are shared with determining eligibility, evaluating eavoid and/or minimize impacts, aMemorandum of Agreement stipulaany adverse effects/impacts on NPSection 106 Draft MOA is Appendix 

10. DRPT has responded to DOI’s detail
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-34 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

(No comments on this page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

Appendix A to DOI Letter – Comme

Service: A1. Section 3.14 of the Draft EIS iden

administered by NPS that are withlimits of disturbance, including the Waterfowl Sanctuary (which is part Mount Vernon Trail, and FrederickNational Military Park. As noted in only temporary impacts during consthe GWMP, Mount Vernon Trail, anSpotsylvania National Military Parkthe Final EIS, the Preferred Altepermanent or temporary impacts to Sanctuary. 

 DRPT will continue to coordinate w

final design and construction phaseavoid and minimize the temporary Should temporary impacts be unavoto NPS for temporary construction special use permits. 

 These actions have been addressed 

with NPS’s Director’s Order 12 - Environmental Impact Analysis, anshould allow NPS to adopt this Nforward with the agency’s federapermit). 

A2. As noted above, FRA and DRPT 

permanent impacts to NPS lands. coordinate with the NPS during finato avoid the indicated temporary temporary impacts be unavoidable, temporary construction access permtime. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-36 

TO DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

 DRPT will continue to coordinate 

design (after funding becomes avimprovements are scheduled) to needed to apply for permits froconstruction impacts to GWMP aSpotsylvania National Military Park

A3. The requested text clarification is ad

for the Draft EIS, which is Appendix 

A4. The requested text clarifications are 

table for the Draft EIS, which is App

A5. The DC2RVA Project Purpose an

multimodal transportation network passenger rail operates. Intercity passengers long distances between populated urban or suburban areas, wor near the city center, as compared carries passengers shorter distances to more frequent stops. In keeping development along this corridor, moproviding intercity passenger rail sertheir respective downtowns, or in nBusiness and leisure travelers using transportation options, including lighfoot, to move between the statioorigin/destination points, including oWhile these factors played a key role ia downtown Richmond station improvements recommended by the access and rail service frequency to sto improvements to other modes oChapter 7 of the Final EIS for details aDevelopment Plan, which is being Project and includes a station anaintercity passenger rail station’s capacintermodal connection, and ADA aneeds of the intercity passenger rail se

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

 If a Preferred Alternative alignment 

existing pedestrian and/or bicycle cbe designed to current safety standwith Americans with Disabilities AProject. FRA considered the additdetermined such a bicycle/walking Project’s Purpose and Need as it doepassenger rail service, nor does transportation choice for intercity corto establish a new bicycle and peseparate and distinct action from passenger rail service under the Policy Act (NEPA) and is not part of this Project. The addition of a greefrom Leesylvania State Park to FalmoPurpose and Need, and would be inas part of the DC2RVA Project. 

A6. DRPT recognizes that the DC2RV

Virginia must include a smooth transLong Bridge. Construction of a new GWMP is under consideration as pBridge project, and any related timpacts would be part of that proDC2RVA Project. 

In the Draft EIS, to avoid unnece

possible alternatives of the separate and DRPT identified and evaconfigurations for the one-mile scorridor in Arlington. Subsequently, Tracks on the West was selected as for the DC2RVA Project to align with were recommended in the Long Br(refer to Final EIS Section 4.3.1 Alternative 1B will add two tracks on of the existing two tracks, beginning proposed tracks will diverge from ththe existing railroad bridge over GW

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-38 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

 The permanent and temporary Lim

for the Preferred Alternative, whistaging and activities along the Dencroach onto the railroad bridge ovtext stating this was added in Section 

A7. The intent of the chapter figure sch

including the referenced Draft EIS Fgeneral overview of proposed immapping pulled from an ESRI sershown in the full mapbooks of thwhich is Appendix L of the Final EISthe text in Chapter 4 of the Final Appendix L for full details. Restatement #3 for response to NPS boand Long Bridge Park. 

A8. Locations where the proposed impr

the right-of-way are identified in graphics of the Preferred Alternativethe Final EIS. Improvements that aexisting CSXT right-of-way are idetemporary limits of disturbance paragraphs of Chapter 5 of the FinaChapter 4 of the Final EIS provides limits of the Preferred AlternatArlington to Alexandria. Designs in Final EIS are at the conceptual level, aof design, and would be further refafter funding becomes availaimprovements are scheduled. 
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

A9. Due to the length of the DC2RVA c

site-specific information was providappendices of the Draft EIS. Thireadability and maintain the Draft Elength and level of detail for decisioEIS technical reports covered naturaof the Draft EIS), community resouDraft EIS), cultural resources (Apptransportation (Appendix S of the vibration (Appendix P of the Drenvironmental resource mapping needed, for the Final EIS; refer to A

A10. The requested text clarifications ar

table for the Draft EIS, which is App

A11. The requested text clarification is ad

for the Draft EIS, which is Appendi

A12. The requested text clarification is ad

for the Draft EIS, which is Appendi

A13. The requested text clarification is ad

for the Draft EIS, which is Appendi

A14. Comment noted. A15. Information regarding federally 

endangered species that may be imobtained from USFWS via the InfConservation (IPaC) system, and Section 4.10.3; updated IPAC infoFebruary 2018 for the Preferred Altin Section 5.10.3 of the Final EIS. Threrun prior to construction, and coand NMFS pursuant to Section 7 oAct for potential impacts to federaconducted, where required. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-40 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

A16. The species listed in the comment a

by the state, but are not legally desi“endangered”. Notwithstanding, Dresource agencies to avoid or minimincluding sensitive species, dupermitting (after funding becomes aimprovements are scheduled). 

A17. Both the GWMP and NCRO are 

Section 106 of the National Historithis undertaking and as such, have dialogues regarding historic propeincluding attendance at meetings dialogues regarding technical stuProject effect, and providing feeadverse effects. Refer to Appendupdated Section 106 and Secticoordination. 

A18. Seventeen technical reports with d

were submitted to the consulting 2017 for review and comment. Awere submitted to consulting partieand comment; the five technical re(after the publication of the DraAppendix D. All 22 reports are website and upon request. DRPT available to consulting parties showand boundaries of recorded resourc

A19. Please refer to DRPT-numbered sta

letter, which lists eight offices of thparties on this Project (including thcontacted via email, telephone, meetings regarding the Project and 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

A20. Detailed maps showing above

presented in the technical reports Draft EIS for the original 17 reports in 2017 and Appendix D of the Final reports submitted to the NPS for separate information sent to the eighThis information was disseminated emails, and in-person meetings; reFinal EIS for updated Section 106 aand coordination. Archaeological deight NPS consulting parties. 

A21. Yes. An archaeological Phase 

predictive model was sent to the cincludes eight offices of NPS, for th[note that the GWMP was included July 2017 and has since received copand documentation to date]. Astudies were performed on areas thto the limits of disturbance; these study in the winter and spring of 20technical report was submitted to thfor their review in May 2018 and aand Appendix D of the Final methodology used in all reports wand meets all state standards for areports were submitted to the concurrence. 

A22. Yes. The archaeological APE inclu

temporary limits of disturbance. Pthe limits of disturbance as determMore recent archaeological surveyDraft EIS include additional areas, since the original study; refer to SecThe methodology meets DHR stanProject predictive model, as review

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-42 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

A23. The limits of the GWMP as a histo

in the Draft EIS and associated teclimits on file at the DHR at the tiprepared. DRPT has confirmed the aforementioned aspects, and urequired, are reflected in the anAlternative in Section 5.13 of the Fin
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

A24. Section 3.14 of the Draft EIS 

recreational, parkland and trail rearea (500 feet to either side of Specifically, Section 3.14.1 discusparklands and referenced the GWand Spotsylvania National Military Section 3.14.4 discussed Wildlife Roaches Run Waterfowl SanctuaClarification has also been added Island Park is owned by NPS and table for the Draft EIS which is App

A25. The requested text clarification is ad

for the Draft EIS, which is Appendi

A26. The requested text clarification is ad

for the Draft EIS, which is Appendi

A27. Comment noted. A28. The requested text clarification is ad

for the Draft EIS, which is Appendi

A29. Refer to DRPT-numbered statemenA30. Viewsheds from the Potomac Herit

have been clarified as sensitive applicable refer to the errata table fAppendix A of the Final EIS. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-44 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

A31. Arlington County owns a long nar

located to the east of the rail corridLong Bridge Park Master Plan, is pThe figure that is referenced in thportion of Long Bridge Park that is Project, and is consistent with the the Draft and Final EIS. Alternativthe Preferred Alternative (refer to Fdetails). The Preferred Alternative or permanent right of way imWaterfowl Sanctuary. DRPT will cothe NPS during final design (after fuand incremental improvements are boundaries and assessments of land

A32. The requested clarifications to th

appropriate parks within the tables EIS are addressed in the errata tablis Appendix A of the Final EIS. 

A33. Clarification to indicate that Four 

waterway is addressed in the erratwhich is Appendix A of the Final EMile Run in the Final EIS indicawaterway. 

A34. The additional track will require 

stormwater drainage capacity as permeable to rainfall; rail ballast cover since it does not significainfiltration into the soil. The management facilities for portions adjacent to the GWMP will be determ(after funding becomes availimprovements are scheduled) in co

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

A35. Alternative 1B has been selected as 

(refer to Final EIS Section 4.1.3 for uses within 500 feet of AlternAlternatives 1A or 1C), as evaluated using FRA’s required methodology, Therefore, potential vibration assointercity passenger trains was nsegments. 

A36. DRPT conducted vibration analy

General Vibration Assessment minclude an evaluation of wildlife resof the Build Alternatives as evaluatexisting rail alignments. As shown EIS, the Sound Exposure Level (Straveling at 90 mph does not meet threshold of 100 SEL for effects on distances of 50 feet or greater from freight train railcars and for locomoto 110 SEL within 50 feet of the trackwere found to be highest along Ashland Bypass alternatives due ttrain noise in areas that do not curexisting conditions; however, FRrecommending any of the bypass aPreferred Alternative. Animals are enoise impacts by avoiding establisterritories within the areas immediawhere noise impacts occur; howevarea would already be acclimated to the vicinity of the existing rail corri

 Potential impacts of construction n

be sensitive to noise, including meagles, are discussed in Final E5.10.3.1, respectively. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-46 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

A37. Construction of the Project will requ

some areas of the existing right-oeasements outside of the existing restore vegetation removed during ceasements outside of the existing rpracticable. 

 A sufficient forested buffer will 

anticipates views from the GWMunchanged. The low visual ratings documented in Section 4.9.1 of the Dof the Final EIS, takes into account tracks through these sections from Given that the area is already urbanbeing added adjacent to existing tthat the low visual impact rating is 
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

(Response to comment A37 on previous page) A38. Davis’ sedge and river bulrush are 

or “endangered” and are therefoanalysis of threatened and endangSection 5.10.3. There is potential fthese plant species where wetland will coordinate with resource agenimpacts to all species, including sendesign and permitting (after fundinincremental improvements are minimization, and mitigation mwetlands in Final Section 5.1.6.1 anSection 5.10.1.4, including miminimizing clearing and grubbindisturbed areas using native plants resource agencies, will minimize imspecies. 

A39. Comment noted. DRPT will dev

measures for impacts to sensitive with the resource agencies during after construction funding has been 

A40. Comment noted. Refer to DRPT-nuA41. Comment noted. Refer to DRPT-n

through #23. 

A42. In the Final EIS, a note has been ad

that does not include all six alternaonly the areas with impacts and/oand to specifically state which areas and/or resources (and are thereforIn regard to the referenced Draft EIS adverse effects in Alternative Areaadverse effects results in "0"s in the 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-48 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

A43. Alternative 1B has been selected as 

(refer to Final EIS Section 4.1.3 for impacts on the east side of the exisarea identified as Long Bridge Park Arlington. According to parcel which was acquired from the Counthe development of the Draft EIS a2017, there are no permanent oRoaches Run Waterfowl SanctuarySection 5.14 and Chapter 6 of thdetermination. 

A44. Comment noted. A45. The owner of the railroad right-

permit private or public parallel within the railroad’s right-of-wayhowever, does not preclude the depedestrian facilities between rail property or public rights-of-way right-of-way, separate from this numbered statement #5 for more Project Purpose and Need and mulintercity passenger rail. 

A46. See response to DRPT-numbered stA47. Part 1) Mount Vernon Memorial Hig

DHR-ID 029-0218) was addressed s6.4.3 (associated Final EIS Section parkland resource. No permanent would be required from GWMP. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

 Part 2) The Draft EIS refers to a te

Section 4(f) resource, not a de minminimis only occurs when impacts In accordance with Section 4(f) of the U.S.C. 303[c]), as amended by SAccountable, Flexible, Efficient, TraLegacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), resources were determined to be eiminimis use, or a temporary occupancies are exempted from the 4(f) approvals if they meet the con774.13(d). It important to note that tfor this Project follows FHWA and FTis not directly subject to these rules, these procedures are appropriate for 

 As stated in the Final Section 4(f) Ev

Final EIS), the temporary occupancy size and is generally a long narrow feet in width. This area is temconstruction for access, erosion placement. Impacts to mature treavoided during final design. DRPT restore any temporary visual and construction to prior conditions. 

 Part 3) DRPT understands that Roa

waterfowl sanctuary, and has updasuch in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluat(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-50 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

 Part 4) As stated in the Final Section 

of the Final EIS), 20 feet of the Moutemporarily impacted during conswould be temporarily impacted is lthe existing rail right-of-way on GWCity Water Park and near Ronald RConstruction planning and timing final design, after funding is detesequencing is developed. DRPT wNPS throughout final design, aconnectivity and functionality construction activities that affect th

 Part 5) Chapter 6 of the Final EIS in

of the Final Section 4(f) analysis, incharm analysis. 

A48. Comment note. Refer to DRPT-nu

through #23. 
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

A49. Text was added before the referen

existing conditions boundary lines (EIS for the Final Section 4(f) Evalua

A50. The referenced text was addressed 

Draft EIS, which is Appendix A of t

A51. Only one wetland area has been id

of disturbance for Area 1 (01-WTLRemarks section under Summary page of the Wetland Determinatiodata point was not taken at this lorestrictions. The wetland boundariebest available data including aerial pmaps, and VDCR, NHD, and NWI the wetlands will be verified as neethe resource agencies during the process during final design, after fuand incremental improvements are 

A52. As noted on page 3-5 of the Draf

Appendix M, field reviews by US A(USACE) and Virginia Department (DEQ) and spot checks with the intervals during the field survey conducted according to agency expformal jurisdictional determination USACE during the Joint Permit Ap

final design, after funding becomes improvements are scheduled. 

A53. The USACE definition of wetland

inventory and analysis in the Draft Resources Division will be consuimpacts during final design, after fuand incremental improvements acompletion of the final design and bwill complete the activities necessProcedural Manual #77-1 and will cas needed. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-52 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

A54. As noted in Section 4.1.6.2 of the Dr

of the Final EIS, permanent smeasures may include upgrading facilities and installation of new including detention basins, to captuPreferred Alternative will be desiaccordance with the Virginia ErosiLaw (§10.1-560 et seq. of the Stormwater Management Act (§10.1of Virginia) and the terms and conpermits required by USACE, VirDRPT will provide detailed drainduring final design, after funding incremental improvements are sche
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

Appendix B to DOI Letter – Comments f

Chesapeake National Historic Trail: B1. and B2. The name and description of 

been updated, as requested; refer tDraft EIS, which is Appendix A to th

B3. The referenced trail has been add

resource, as requested; refer to the EIS, which is Appendix A to the Fina

B4. The requested clarifications have bee

table for the Draft EIS, which is App

B5. Build Alternative 3C, a bypass aro

across the Rappahannock River, is tanalyzed in the Draft EIS with a rivelocation. The visual assessment ran

visual impact in Visual Assessment alternative is not the Preferred Altwhich includes a new track adjacenbridge adjacent to the existing bridge was selected as the Preferred AlterSection 4.3.3 for details). 

B6. All of the Preferred Alternative’s cro

adjacent to existing crossings. After fand incremental improvements are sof the DC2RVA Project will, at a minhorizontal and vertical openings oConstruction phasing, to occur dfunding becomes available, wilrecreational uses. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-54 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

Appendix C to DOI Letter – Comments 

Spotsylvania National Military Park aBattlefield: C1. The parcel boundaries are based 

acquired from the County on Judevelopment of the Draft EIS, which consistent with current County data 

DRPT has confirmed that these Couconsistent with those shown on the clarify parcel boundaries during finbecomes available and incremenscheduled. DRPT will continue to through final design to ensure thaFredericksburg & Spotsylvania Naaccurate. Additionally, DRPT wconstruction needs on NPS property

C2. As part of the DC2RVA Project, DRPT 

railroad operations simulations to deteon rail traffic in the corridor. To adInterior’s comment, DRPT has revioperations simulations to determine the delay (what the Department of Interi

locations where the DC2RVA corridor i

locations were identified for this ainterlocking and proposed Frederic(milepost CFP 55.7), which is adjacBattlefield, and (b) the Guinea interlowhich is adjacent to the “Stonewall” analysis at these locations was conductyear horizon for measuring impacts from compared the total delay (time that between the No Build case (which assethe location without the additional infrafrequencies proposed by the DC2RVA Alternative Build case (which assesses location including the additional infrastfrequencies proposed by the DC2RVA 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

 After conducting an evaluation of tr

interlocking, DRPT determined tharailroad corridor would operate mowith a decrease in average daily train queuing by 8 minutes per day if the Dimplemented, when compared to thdecrease in queuing would result in Fredericksburg Battlefield due to acknowledges that the computer-bsimulation provides only an estimaparticular location along the corridor. train delays are subject to variability; hdecrease in train delays near thdemonstrate a reduction in potential 

 After conducting an evaluation of t

interlocking, DRPT determined thaaverage daily train delay resulting fincrease by 3 minutes per day if the Dimplemented, when compared to thslight increase in queuing would impact to the “Stonewall” Jackson located adjacent to the existing tracks to the infrequent visual effects oacknowledges that the computer-bsimulation provides only an estimaparticular location along the corridor. train delays are subject to variability; hthree-minute increase in train dinterlocking is minimal. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-56 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

 The Richmond National Battlefield 

Visitor Center is located at 470 TredVirginia, on the site of the former Trthe James River. This site is approxthe railroad tracks that are part of tHowever, the site is adjacent to raiwith railroad lines in the DC2RVA canalyzed the differences in train eastbound trains on the CSXT Rivanapproaching and preparing to enter Rivanna Junction in Richmond. evaluation of train delay for eastbouSubdivision at the Rivanna Junctdetermined that in the year 2045, the resulting from train queuing would per day if the DC2RVA Project were compared to the No Build resultsqueuing would have little overaRichmond National Battlefield Park which is already located adjacent to currently exposed to the infrequenqueuing. DRPT acknowledges thrailroad operations simulation provthe operations at a particular locaActual rail operations and train variability; however, the potential inless than five minutes near the Rivais minimal. 
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO

R (co

(No comments on this page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-58 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (co

Appendix D to DOI Letter -- Com

Battlefield Protection Program: D1. At a meeting with DRPT on Febr

determined that KOCOA analysicomment) is not needed to determeffects. If factors change upon an anaand effect determinations, additicompleted at that time. 

D2. Alternative 3B was selected as th

which adds one track to the existthrough Fredericksburg (refer to Fi

details). DRPT will continue to cooconsulting parties in the cultural reinvolved the NPS in the developmstipulations to mitigate any adverse historic properties caused by the undDraft MOA is Appendix K of the Fin

D3. The Richmond National Battlefield 

among the eight offices of the NPS won this Project. 

D4. The North Anna Battlefield Park is 

Road in Doswell, Virginia, approximthe DC2RVA corridor. The battlefiBuckingham Branch Railroad, at 

DC2RVA Project corridor. The DCpropose any increases to intercity changes to current railroad operatinthe segment of the Buckingham BraDoswell by the North Anna Battlefie
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AG

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATI1. The Federal Aviation Administratio

intermodal links to the region’s airProject’s Purpose and Need. 

2. Conditions in the Project corridor cu

Tier I EIS Purpose and Need and aDC2RVA Project. These conditions wof the Draft EIS and include air travand national airports. However, the intended to be the singular solution travel congestion. Rather, the DC2RVa competitive travel alternative in Richmond corridor by improving tand travel time of passenger rail opbeyond.